Ramón Corbalán

Effect of Nesiritide in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P≤0.005 for both assessments or P≤0.0025 for either) was not met. The rate of rehospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause within 30 days was 9.4% in the nesiritide group versus 10.1% in the placebo group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.7; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in rates of death from any cause at 30 days (3.6% with nesiritide vs. 4.0% with placebo; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.5) or rates of worsening renal function, defined by more than a 25% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (31.4% vs. 29.5%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.21; P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS Nesiritide was not associated with an increase or a decrease in the rate of death and rehospitalization and had a small, nonsignificant effect on dyspnea when used in combination with other therapies. It was not associated with a worsening of renal function, but it was associated with an increase in rates of hypotension. On the basis of these results, nesiritide cannot be recommended for routine use in the broad population of patients with acute heart failure. (Funded by Scios; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00475852.).

Greater Clinical Benefit of More Intensive Oral Antiplatelet Therapy With Prasugrel in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38

Background— Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at high risk for recurrent cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes, in part because of increased platelet reactivity. The Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38) showed an overall reduction in ischemic events with more intensive antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel than with clopidogrel but with more bleeding. We compared prasugrel with clopidogrel among subjects with DM in TRITON-TIMI 38. Methods and Results— We classified 13 608 subjects on the basis of preexisting history of DM and further according to insulin use. Prespecified analyses of the primary (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) and key secondary end points, including net clinical benefit (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal TIMI major bleeding) were compared by use of the log-rank test. We found that 3146 subjects had a preexisting history of DM, including 776 receiving insulin. The primary end point was reduced significantly with prasugrel among subjects without DM (9.2% versus 10.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; P=0.02) and with DM (12.2% versus 17.0%; HR, 0.70; P<0.001, Pinteraction=0.09). A benefit for prasugrel was observed among DM subjects on insulin (14.3% versus 22.2%; HR, 0.63; P=0.009) and those not on insulin (11.5% versus 15.3%; HR, 0.74; P=0.009). Myocardial infarction was reduced with prasugrel by 18% among subjects without DM (7.2% versus 8.7%; HR, 0.82; P=0.006) and by 40% among subjects with DM (8.2% versus 13.2%; HR, 0.60; P<0.001, Pinteraction=0.02). Although TIMI major hemorrhage was increased among subjects without DM on prasugrel (1.6% versus 2.4%; HR, 1.43; P=0.02), the rates were similar among subjects with DM for clopidogrel and prasugrel (2.6% versus 2.5%; HR, 1.06; P=0.81, Pinteraction=0.29). Net clinical benefit with prasugrel was greater for subjects with DM (14.6% versus 19.2%; HR, 0.74; P=0.001) than for subjects without DM (11.5% versus 12.3%; HR, 0.92; P=0.16, Pinteraction=0.05). Conclusions— Subjects with DM tended to have a greater reduction in ischemic events without an observed increase in TIMI major bleeding and therefore a greater net treatment benefit with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel. These data demonstrate that the more intensive oral antiplatelet therapy provided with prasugrel is of particular benefit to patients with DM.

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes without Revascularization

BACKGROUND The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P=0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P=0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

Darapladib for Preventing Ischemic Events in Stable Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2. METHODS In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization). RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.).

Psychologic Stress and Threshold for Repetitive Ventricular Response

A psychologically stressful environment reduced the threshold of the dogs ventricle for repetitive response. Elicitation of such a response indicates the presence of electrical instability and a predisposition to ventricular fibrillation, the mechanism of sudden death.

Prevalence, clinical profile, and cardiovascular outcomes of atrial fibrillation patients with atherothrombosis.

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor (RF) for ischemic stroke. Its prevalence and prognostic impact in patients with atherothrombosis are unclear. METHODS Risk factors, drug usage, and 1-year cardiovascular (CV) outcomes (CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) were compared in AF and non-AF patients from the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry, an international, prospective cohort of 68,236 stable outpatients with established atherothrombosis or>or=3 atherothrombotic RFs. RESULTS Atrial fibrillation and 1-year follow-up data are available for 63,589 patients. The prevalence of AF was, 12.5%, 13.7%, 11.5%, and 6.2% among coronary artery disease, CV disease, peripheral artery disease, and RF-only patients, respectively. Of the 6,814 patients with AF, 6.7% experienced CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke within a year. The annual incidence of nonfatal stroke (2.4% vs 1.6%, P<.0001) and unstable angina (6.0% vs 4.0%, P<.00001) was higher, and CV death was more than double (3.2% vs 1.4%, P<.0001), in AF versus non-AF patients. In these patients with or at high risk of atherothrombosis, most patients with AF received antiplatelet agents, but only 53.1% were treated with oral anticoagulants. Even with high CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, aging, diabetes mellitus, and stroke) scores, anticoagulant use did not exceed (59%). The rate of bleeding requiring hospitalization was higher in AF versus non-AF patients (1.5% vs 0.8%, P<.0001), possibly related to the more frequent use of anticoagulants (53.1% vs 7.1%). CONCLUSIONS Atrial fibrillation is common in patients with atherothrombosis, associated with more frequent fatal and nonfatal CV outcomes, and underuse of oral anticoagulants.

Psychological stress and ventricular arrhythmias during myocardial infarction in the conscious dog.

Abstract The influence of psychological stress on cardiac rhythm was studied in eight conscious dogs before and after coronary arterial occlusion. The behavioral and cardiac responses of the animals were compared in stressful and nonstressful environments. Before coronary arterial obstruction, psychological stress lowered the vulnerable period threshold for repetitive ventricular responses by 82 percent. After myocardial infarction, presentation of stressful stimull provoked diverse ventricular arrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia and early extrasystoles with T wave interruption. Our study provides an experimental model for the systematic investigation of the role of psychological factors in the development of cardiac arrhythmias.

Differing mechanisms for ventricular vulnerability during coronary artery occlusion and release

The time course and mechanism of vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation (VF) a 10-minute occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery and following its release were studied in 48 dogs. VF threshold was determined by inducing a sequence of three extrasystoles (sequential R/T pulsing). Within 1 minute of occlusion, the fibrillation current decreased to the level required for eliciting a propagated diastolic response. This state of enhanced vulnerability lasted for approximately 6 minutes, after which the VF threshold returned to preocclusion values. The vulnerability changes upon reperfusion, by comparison, occurred within seconds of release and persisted only transiently. Three minutes of occlusion was the minimal time which resulted in a reduction in VF threshold after release. Alpha and beta-adrenergic blockade with phentolamine and propranolol, respectively, prevented the decrease in VF threshold during occlusion but were without effect upon threshold changes during coronary artery release. Lidocaine failed to alter the pattern of vulnerability. It is concluded that adrenergic mechanisms play a key role in the increased susceptibility to VF associated with acute myocardial ischemia, whereas the changes in VF threshold following reperfusion may be due to washout products of cellular ischemia. These findings support the view that protection against VF during coronary artery occlusion and release may require different antiarrhythmic measures.

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial

OBJECTIVE The glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment is challenging, with few treatment options. We investigated the effect of saxagliptin in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial according to baseline renal function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with T2DM at risk for cardiovascular events were stratified as having normal or mildly impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 13,916), moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 2,240), or severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 336) and randomized to receive saxagliptin or placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS After a median duration of 2 years, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of the primary and secondary composite end points compared with placebo, irrespective of renal function (all P for interactions ≥0.19). Overall, the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the three eGFR groups of patients was 2.2% (referent), 7.4% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% CI 1.95–2.91], P < 0.001), and 13.0% (adjusted HR 4.59 [95% CI 3.28–6.28], P < 0.001), respectively. The relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin was similar (P for interaction = 0.43) in patients with eGFR >50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99–1.55]), eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.46 [95% CI 1.07–2.00]), and in patients with eGFR <30 (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.52–1.71]). Patients with renal impairment achieved reductions in microalbuminuria with saxagliptin (P = 0.041) that were similar to those of the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS Saxagliptin did not affect the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events, increased the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and reduced progressive albuminuria, irrespective of baseline renal function.

Effects of low-dose oral enoximone administration on mortality, morbidity, and exercise capacity in patients with advanced heart failure: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group ESSENTIAL trials.

Aims Use of inotropic agents in patients with heart failure (HF) has been limited by adverse effects on outcomes. However, administration of positive inotropes at lower doses and concomitant treatment with beta-blockers might increase benefit–risk ratio. We investigated the effects of low doses of the positive inotrope enoximone on symptoms, exercise capacity, and major clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HF who were also treated with beta-blockers and other guideline-recommended background therapy. Methods and results The Studies of Oral Enoximone Therapy in Advanced HF (ESSENTIAL) programme consisted of two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that differed only by geographic location (North and South America: ESSENTIAL-I; Europe: ESSENTIAL-II). Patients with New York Heart Association class III–IV HF symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30%, and one hospitalization or two ambulatory visits for worsening HF in the previous year were eligible for participation in the trials. The trials had three co-primary endpoints: (i) the composite of time to all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, analysed in the two ESSENTIAL trials combined; (ii) the 6 month change from baseline in the 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD); and (iii) the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 months, both analysed in each trial separately. ESSENTIAL-I and -II randomized 1854 subjects at 211 sites in 16 countries. In the combined trials, all-cause mortality and the composite, first co-primary endpoint did not differ between the two treatment groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–1.17; and HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86–1.12, respectively, for enoximone vs. placebo]. The two other co-primary endpoints were analysed separately in the two ESSENTIAL trials, as prospectively designed in the protocol. The 6MWTD increased with enoximone, compared with placebo, in ESSENTIAL-I (P = 0.025, not reaching, however, the pre-specified criterion for statistical significance of P < 0.020), but not in ESSENTIAL-II. No difference in PGA was observed in either trial. Conclusion Although low-dose enoximone appears to be safe in patients with advanced HF, major clinical outcomes are not improved.